Re: This is actually really interesting

quote:Finland has 5.2 million people. Over a million live in the Helsinki area (about 20 square miles). Thats about 20% of the population. Can you name a city in the US that has 20% of the population?

What the *heck* are you talking about? Who in their right mind uses percentage of population as a metric of economic feasibility? What kind of stupid FUD is this?

quote:Now, Finland is a reasonable large landmass, which accounts for your view of it being "sparsely" populated. But, population, for the most part, is concentric there.

The government's plan is to provide EVERYONE with 100 mbps by 2015. That requires fiber to every single household, regardless of where they live.

As for the "concentric" of people, the 1 million+ live in the Greater Helsinki Area, not the metropolitan area itself. The density of population in that area is still far less than most US states, and if you look at just the metropolitan area most major US cities have much higher population densities. So basically you're full of it.

quote:Last I looked, the incumbants pay PEG and regulatory fees to the state and federal level, not the other way around.

How much money do you think ISPs would have to pay if they had to negotiate settlement fees with every landowner to use their property for line placement? That alone is an incredible subsidy. What about the government's enforcement of public spectrum allocation? Do you think wireless companies could by itself prevent people from illegally interfering in their licensed airwaves?

In addition, numerous states have outright bans on the buildout of municipal networks, while numerous others have extremely difficult to overcome regulatory hurdles. You don't think this provides ISPs with monetary advantages?

How can you make it possible to have a choice when it comes to electricity, gas, or water? Or are you suggesting we should just have multiple pipes/electrical lines running everywhere just so people have "choice"?

There's a good reason these are considered utilities and are run by regulated monopolies in an area. But we only have a physical limitation when it comes to broadband access. It is very possible to have multiple ISPs serve a neighborhood, even if there's only one physical line going to each house.

Let's put it this way: Do you have a choice of who builds and maintains the roads to your home? At the same time, are you limited to which company you can purchase vehicles to drive on this road?

Basically, treat the physical lines to each home as a utility; either the municipality or a regulated monopoly company will build and maintain these lines. Heck, treat the whole system as a giant local network, if you must. Then let users pick whatever company to be their "gateway" to the Internet. You monopolize the physical aspects of broadband access out of necessity, yet still allow consumer choice and fair competition for internet access. This is not possible to do with the current utilites (electricity, water, and gas).

Basically, treat the physical lines to each home as a utility; either the municipality or a regulated monopoly company will build and maintain these lines. Heck, treat the whole system as a giant local network, if you must. Then let users pick whatever company to be their "gateway" to the Internet.

I agree. We need a different model, where the "last mile" of infrastructure is treated like water, sewer, gas, electric. A city service, taxpayer-subsidized co-op, private company (like most gas and electric companies). Any of which governed by the state's corporation commission as a public utility to regulate expenses and rates.

Residents could then interconnect to a multitude of competing ISPs offering anything from bare-bones connectivity to teevee and telephone.

That still doesn't address how wireless service providers should be better regulated to operate in the public interest. They obtain a monopoly on finite public resources (airwaves). There's no way to demarcate access to that public resource like a city's "last mile." I think wireless providers should be treated as a public utility.

primary carrier in an area but power/gas being charged by a second company. My electrical bill does NOT go to the provider in the area, so yes this is possible without having tons of lines going everywhere.